Letter writer: Community water fluoridation has important benefits for oral health

… I’m a high school student working with the local nonprofit Youth Empowered Solutions (YES!). There has been talk recently about removing the fluoride from our city’s water. We as an organization strongly believe that our city water should remain fluoridated.

Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of the natural mineral fluoride to a public water supply which reduces tooth decay. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, water fluoridation has been identified to be the most cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to citizens: For every $1 invested in water fluoridation, $38 is saved by reducing the need for dental fillings and other treatments. The CDC named community water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

In our community, the poor, the elderly and the racial and ethnic minorities experience the most suffering because of a lack of access to regular and preventative oral health care. Fluoridated water can be the most viable option for care because it helps the people that suffer the most in a highly cost-effective way.

I have two younger siblings who live in an area in which their only access to water is well water that’s not fluoridated. They regularly drink unfluoridated water, but they do brush their teeth twice a day. Every time they visit the dentist, their dentist tells them their dental health is suffering due to them having to drink unfluoridated water regularly.

Water fluoridation is an inexpensive means of improving oral health that benefits all residents of a community, young and old, rich and poor alike. YES! encourages the public to become informed on the issue and speak to your local city council if this ever comes to a vote.

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

61 thoughts on “Letter writer: Community water fluoridation has important benefits for oral health”

When did government bureaucrats become qualified to dispense medication (Fluoride) without a license? It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or a chemical. This should be illegal for the government as well.

Fluoride should not be added to drinking water, which forces everyone to consume it against their will. It affects the brain (lowered IQ), the bones (brittle bones, fractured hips & bone cancer), the thyroid gland, arthritis, etc. . It is linked with Alzheimer’s and Downs Syndrome,

To confirm that fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is dangerous, Google “Fluoride dangers” and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles, many by M.D.’s, dentists and medical scientists.

To confirm that James Reeves has absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about, try to find any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support his ridiculous claims.

James lives in a fluoridated area of Louisiana. So, this begs the question as to whether he is so insane that he freely drinks and otherwise utilizes water which he believes has a “chemical” in it that causes the litany of disorders he claims……or whether he actually does not believe the unsubstantiated hogwash he spews all over the internet, any more than does anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

When you don’t have any facts, you attack the person just like the Slott Machine does.

It is not certain that Steve Slott is employed to promote this industrial toxic waste, fluoride hydrofluosilicic acid. Many say so.

There is certainly big money ($ billions) involved in selling it to communities. These industries have many lobbyists to ensure that the truth is not exposed that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. They fund many national organizations.
As they say, follow the money to learn the truth.

Ahh, James, yet once again reveals his true lack of integrity by trotting out his lame, erroneous implication that I am somehow paid to advocate for the public health initiative of water fluoridation. He perfectly examples the caliber of individual with whom one deals when according credence to antifluoridationists.

James, still has as yet to explain why he would freely drink and otherwise utilize water if he honestly believed it contained “industrial toxic waste”. Obviously he does not believe the nonsense he constantly emits.

In regard to who are the only ones of whom I’m aware are being paid to keep this issue alive, and to further expose James’ hypocrisy……

1. Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot- Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy. Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN. Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul’s fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this “donation” would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.

2. William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s group, FAN.

3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary dream that he would ever succeed.

4. Alex Jones- Connett affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of “Infowars” infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95 a solution called “FluorideShield”

According to Jones’ website:
“Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body.”

——http://www.infowarsshop.com/Fluoride-Shield_p_1223.html

5. Whatever may be paid to Connett’s son, Michael, for his “services” to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.

As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.

Please provide one peer reviewed study that demonstrates water treated with silicofluorides are effective at preventing tooth decay. The CDC’s own data cannot even show a correlation between fluoridation exposure and better oral health. In fact, some of the most fluoridated states like Georgia (95.8% fluoridated) and Kentucky (99.8%) also have the highest rates of tooth loss among the country.

Sure “NoNonsense” , here are 5 such studies. Let me know if you would like to see more.

1) Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.

2) CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.

——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

3). CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.

4) Abstract
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars.

5). CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.

What bull and hot air from the promoter of this toxic industrial waste. They will say anything to continue the money rolling in to the companies selling this fluoride to communities.

Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride, added without consent.

The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.

Yes, James, to antifluoridationists, peer-reviewed science is “bull and hot air”. That’s exactly the point. You have absolutely no idea as to what you are talking about with your mindless copy/pastes spewed all over the internet.

If you actually believed any of the utter nonsense you throw out, you would not go within a mile of fluoridated water, much less drink it as you freely do.

1. Keep fluoride in drinking water
2. Water without fluoride is still legal and available, so those who wish can get it bottled.
3. Let those of us who don’t belong top the Flat Earth Society and don’t subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories ala the John Birchers out of it giving everyone freedom of choice. PROBLEM SOLVED

Yiamouyiannis JA. 1990. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-87 national survey of U.S. schoolchildren. Fluoride 23(2):55-67.!http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp- content/uploads/nidr-dmft.pdf

Maupome ́et al, Patterns of Dental Caries Following the Cessation of Water Fluoridation Dec 31, 2001

Clark et al, Changes in Dental Fluorosis Following the Cessation of Water Fluoridation Dec 31, 2006

This is not “the results from the 1986-87 national survey”. It is the skewed “interpretation” of this data by long-time antifluoridationist, John Yiamouyiannis, who also proclaimed that HIV does not cause AIDS. “Fluoridealert” is the biased little website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited “information” posted on this site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.

2. Maupome

This study in no manner demonstrated fluoridation to be ineffective. In fact, it demonstrated just the opposite.

Conclusions of Maupome and Levy in complete and proper context:

“Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.”

This report did not find that fluoridation was ineffective. Again, just the opposite.

“Although current studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have design weaknesses and methodological flaws, the balance of evidence suggests that rates of dental decay are lower in fluoridated than non-fluoridated communities. The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance. The effect tends to be more pronounced in the deciduous dentition. The effect tends to be maximized among children from the lower socioeconomic groups so that this section of the population may be the prime beneficiary. Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations. The few studies of communities where fluoridation has been withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries as a result. More research is needed to document the benefits of fluoridation to adult and elderly populations in terms of reductions in coronal and root decay. Research is also needed to document improvements in the oral health-related quality of life that accrue to populations exposed to fluoridated water in order to enhance the credibility of this public health initiative.”

——-BENEFITS AND RISKS OF WATER FLUORIDATION An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report Prepared under contract for: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada
Submitted by: Dr David Locker

4. “ITO, Caledon, and Brampton study”

This study did not conclude fluoridation to be ineffective, it simply concluded that the authors of this paper could not clearly attribute the decreased decay incidence observed in the fluoridated area, to water fluoridation. There were too many variables.

“A 2001/02 oral health survey of school-aged children conducted in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada found that 50% of children from non-fluoridated, semi-rural, affluent Caledon had dental caries compared to 37% of children from the adjacent, urban, higher immigration, fluoridated city of Brampton.”

“Factors associated with deft + DMFT>1 were: the absence of dental sealants (OR=0.36, p=0.035); last dental visit for check-up and cleaning (OR=0.17, p<0.0001); fed infant-formula post-natally (OR=0.48, p=0.026); did not take multivitamins (OR=2.26, p=0.005); and child, mother and father born outside Canada (OR=4.86, p=0.01). Some children in fluoridated Brampton drank non-fluoridated, bottled water; some children from non-fluoridated Caledon had moved there from fluoridated communities."

"Conclusion: The effect of fluoridation on caries in these communities was not evident given the matching of the fluoridated Brampton schools to the higher SES of Caledon schools plus the variable exposure to fluoridation within the communities."

—–2757 Determinants of caries in adjacent fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities

It really isn’t about teeth, it’s about autoimmune disease including allergies; kidney & thyroid and other endocrine diseases; and learning disabilities. See links in my other comments on this thread.

It’s also about the synergy that develops from the addition of corrosive & polluted fluoride to pipes:
– A 2000 study of over 150k children under age 6 living in New York state, showed “consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead” similar to patterns reported in a 1999 MA study.
– A 2007 report in Neurotoxicology, confirmed that 50% or more of the lead in children’s blood is a result of drinking water.
– A 2014 study in International Journal of Environmental & Public Health confirmed that “fluoride products” are contaminated with aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, barium, etc.

Despite tired 1950s marketing materials from the ADA, CDC and Pew, science on fluoridation is clear…. it is not proven effective, but is proven unsafe, verified by two international review of dental fluoridation literature this century.

Seabreezes, aka Karen Spencer, aka kspencer, aka whatever other pseudonyms under which you post…..you have offered “proof” of nothing here, but your own, continued dishonesty, and failure to even read, much less understand, the literature you copy/paste from antifluoridationist websites.

1. The Cochrane Review did not address any questions of safety of fluoridation. It did report that the literature finds fluoridation to be effective.

“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children’s baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative measures were widely used in many communities around the world.”

2. What you have provided is not a link to the Cochrane Review. It is a link to highly biased “Newsweek” article by Douglas Main. Main is well known for his skewed, misinformative articles on fluoridation in which he allows his bias toward the antifluoridationist position to override what should be at least some semblance of objectivity. For those who truly desire to read the Cochrane information directly, rather than a skewed “interpretation” of it, I have provided the Cochrane website at the end of the above quote from that report.

3. A letter from a personal injury lawyer, making the same unsubstantiated claims as do all uninformed antifluoridationists, posted on an antifluoridationist website called “momsagainstfluoride”………..is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of anyone who believes it to be of any significance, whatsoever.

4. The personal opinions of yet another lawyer, expressing the same, stale arguments which have been repeatedly rejected by the courts, posted on an antifluoridationist website, “momsagainstfluoride”……is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of anyone who believes it to be of any significance, whatsoever.

You might want to begin properly educating yourself from appropriate sources of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation, rather than continuing to rely solely on nonsense you glean from antifluoridationist websites.

Yes, James, to antifluoridationists, peer-reviewed science is “bull and hot air”. That’s exactly the point. You have absolutely no idea as to what you are talking about with your mindless copy/pastes spewed all over the internet.

If you actually believed any of the utter nonsense you throw out, you would not go within a mile of fluoridated water, much less drink it as you freely do.

That you view the exposure of a blatant misrepresentation of a scientific report as being an “attack on scientific information”, speaks volumes about your own lack of understanding of that report and of science in general.

That you view the opinions of personal injury attorneys who seek to profit from litigation, as being “scientific information”…. is truly comical.

After 70 years of fluoridation in the country, one questions why there are epidemics of tooth decay in most fluoridated states and cities.

The CDC’s own data cannot even show a correlation between fluoridation exposure and better oral health. In fact, some of the most fluoridated states like Georgia (95.8% fluoridated) and Kentucky (99.8%) also have the highest rates of tooth loss among the country.

The world has learned the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, more in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined. Last year Israel joined most of the world in banning fluoridation.

Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. That shows just how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

Hey, James, you probably should read the other comments before posting. “NoNonsense” has already mindlessly copy/pasted the blurb about Kentucky, etc. that you have mindlessly copy/pasted here, again.

You guys should really coordinate your mindless copy/pasting better so as to avoid such duplications. Of course, that would involve actually reading what you copy before you paste it, which may be beyond your capabilities…..

As the prolific and vitriolic SS knows, I have read and understood more dental literature than most dentists. Here are just ten:

1 2003 in The Dental Clinics of North America. The present and future role of fluoride in nutrition. (Report states that “ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention”) http://www.dental.theclinics.com/article/S0011-8532(02)00098-8/abstract
2 2011 in Langmuir. Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth? (ACS article on 2010 study, remineralization disproved….) http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2011/acs-presspac-march-2-2011/does-fluoride-really-fight-cavities-by-the-skin-of-the-teeth.html
3 2015 in in Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England….. (Fluoridated communities have more than double the rates of low thyroid) http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971
4 2015 in Toxicological Sciences. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis…. (Gene predicts individuals sensitive to fluoride poisoning at lower concentrations in water which manifest as dental fluorosis and learning deficits) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
5 2015 in Environmental Health. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in US….. (even adjusted for SES in 84 regions of US, fluoridated communities have much higher incidences diagnosed of hyperactivity) http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract
6 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
7 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012 and http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/
8 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
9 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
10 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don’t justify minimal and questionable dental benefit. This last is a report published in an open access journal rather than a study, but it is very well written by reputable scientists and cites solid peer-reviewed science.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

aka KSpencer, depended on platform
BTW: SS’s logins differ, too. And Linda Rosa, who seems to be a leader in the Pew sponsored f-lobby internet trolling, also posts under Peggy Thatcher and a couple of other pseudonyms. So long as a person’s log in is consistent on the platform, I don’t see it as a problem. However, when you see the same person using different log ins on the same thread…. then you have a problem.

You also have a problem when adults who are part of a corporate indoctrinate youth with biased science and encourage them to participate in a social media campaign. In other words, I’m saying NO to YES and suggesting those youth actually do their OWN independent homework… perhaps set up internal debates advocating for both sides, but that means doing real research. You can start with the links I provided.

EXCERPT: “The ADA offers a toolkit to help dental societies and local coalitions involved in initiating or trying to retain community water fluoridation programs…. contains more than 30 ready-to-use resources available to state and local dental societies, including tips on using social media.“

Artificial fluoridation is almost non-existent in Quebec and British Columbia. In fact the majority of Canadians have rejected its use. If fluoridation made a difference (other than raising rates of dental fluorosis) Canadians would have worse oral health than its U.S. neighbours and because black tea contains a lot of fluoride, wouldn’t heavy tea drinkers like the British have better oral health? Proper nutrition, access to dentists and brushing is the only way to prevent cavities. Consuming a classified bio-accumulative toxin like hydrofluorosilicic acid does not.

Science isn’t a popularity contest. There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits and safety of optimally fluoridated drinking water, which apparently most of Americans appreciate. Anti-fluoridationists, on the other hand, typically reject public health measures. Let us remember that the foremost anti-fluoridation group is formally aligned with the loudest anti-vaccinationists (NVIC).

As for proper nutrition, the national professional organization of dietitians recognizes fluoride as a nutrient responsible for helping us have healthy bones and teeth.

For the record, I had all my children vaccinated but my family doctor warned against fluoride decades ago. He told us that no bodily function requires fluoride and you cannot be deficient but you can be over-exposed. If fluoridation actually worked, it would be winning the “popularity” contest. But I’m afraid the U.S. is finding itself more alone on this issue than ever before. Ask yourself why does Hawaii with only 9% of it’s population getting fluoridated water also have the lowest tooth loss per capita in the U.S?

One can only wonder what sort of “doctor” advised you against fluoride. Naturopath, chiropractor, “functional medicine doctor”? A person can’t be “over-exposed” from fluoridation? Just as the pathologists at your local hospital if any cases have been identified in their experience. Some 75% of Americans enjoy community water fluoridation.

FLUORIDE IS A NUTRIENT: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has set an “AI” (Adequate Intake) for fluoride:

“Fluoride: Not Just in Your Toothpaste Fluoride provides health benefits throughout a person’s life, especially for bones and teeth. Fluoride helps harden tooth enamel and so helps protect your teeth from decay. It also may offer some protection from osteoporosis, or brittle bone disease, by helping to strengthen your bones. Consuming too little fluoride may cause tooth enamel to weaken and put you at greater risk of cavities.” http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442474377

The CDC’s data for 6 or more teeth lost due to tooth decay or gum disease in adults 65+ is 30.7% in Hawaii. The lowest rates in the U.S. with also the lowest percentage of fluoridation. Compare this with 52.1% in Kentucky which is near 100% fluoridated.

It appears that “NoNonsense” in all his “wisdom” believes the incidence of dental decay and lost teeth to be dependent on but one, single variable…..water fluoridation. The fallacy of this need not even be explained.

If you actually read the link on Hawaii, although the authors do tack on a line about not being fluoridated, the emphasis in on the lack of dental care for poor children in that state, which by the way has a sugar/carbohydrate rich diet. I prefer comparing NJ, MA, VT, and NY who have similar demographics, climate and access to dental care, but very different fluoridation status. They differ in one other respect, dental sealants….. When looking at children, it’s the dental sealant statistics that make the difference, not fluoridation.

I’m sure that everyone appreciates your “learned” opinion on what is the “only way to prevent cavities”. It ranks right up there with your “learned” opinion on fluoridation. Here’s a suggestion……instead of relying soley on nonsense spoon-fed to you from antifluoridatinist websites, you should consider properly educating yourself from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.

It is always highly comical to see how long it takes uninformed antifluoridationists who have been backed against the wall by facts and evidence, to trot out their greedy mentality with questions as to how much fluoride advocates are getting paid. I receive no compensation, whatsoever, for my efforts.

Given that Paul Connett, his family, and his staff do indeed get paid to keep this issue alive, the real question is how much you and other such greedy antifluoridationists who cower behind pseudonyms, are paid by “FAN” to post your misinformation all over the internet. Do you care to disclose how much you are profiting from this issue?

Well, “NoNonsense”, it appears that your “reward” is rapidly faltering. Fluoridation in the US is increasing, not decreasing, with strong pushback against the constant stream of misinformation and utter nonsense of antifluoridationists now finally occurring in many other areas of the world.

There is no overwhelming evidence, let alone scientific, that proves fluoridation is “safe and effective”. Here in NSW Australia 97% of the State is fluoridated and we have had an ongoing dental crisis for a number of years. The recent Cochrane review examining fluoridation affects on dental cavities and the serious problem with dental fluorosis provides the facts about this medical fraud and this is why Newsweek recently let its readers know the truth about the lack of scientific evidence to support fluoridation and the damage it is doing by exposing young people to the disfiguring disease dental fluorosis.http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

It is very telling that, as usual, antifluoridationists attempt to steer readers to a filtered and edited version of the Cochrane Review, rather than to the original source. The “Newsweek” article is nothing but a misinterpretation of the Cochrane Review, by Douglas Main, a writer well-known for his biased articles against fluoridation in such dubious publications as “Natural News”. Why “Newsweek” has sullied its once proud name with this sort of third rate “journalism” can only be attributed to the current economic hardships faced by the print media, I suppose. However, for those intelligent readers who would like to read the unfiltered Cochrane information directly from its original source, this can be found:

The Cochrane review is consistent with the Newsweek article but of course that does not suit your agenda. According to the Net you are purportedly a dentist and it is not surprising you are so fanatical when it comes to attacking those who oppose this medical fraud. The Cochrane report confirms what has been known for a long time that artificial fluorides cause dental fluorosis a disease that is affecting around 40% of the Australian and American population who are forced to ingest this poison through their drinking water, the food chain and medicines. As a dentist you no doubt consider dental fluorosis a “good little earner” as it causies mottling of the tooth enamel resulting in dental decay. Don’t you think it is time you got a life instead of trying to discredit those who are genuinely concerned about the harm this known neurotoxin is doing to unsuspecting consumers. As a dentist you are not only exposed to fluoride but also mercury and this may account for your lack of understanding when it comes to the fact there is not evidence that fluoridation prevents tooth decay. If it did there would be no need for dentists and that would be a good thing.

Well, John, if you believe the “Newsweek” article to be “consistent” with the actual Cochrane Review, then why are you and the other antifluoridationists on this page so afraid to cite that Review from its original source, rather than attempting to steer readers to Main’s filtered version of it? Obviously your confirmation bias makes you fearful of original sources of information which hasn’t been skewed to confirm your bias against fluoridation.

Now, in regard to your uninformed nonsense about dental fluorosis……

1. There is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”. Fluoride is the anion of the elenent fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. An atom of fluorine is an atom of fluorine, regardless the source compound from which it is released. This is just elementary chemistry.

2. You obviously have no valid evidence of any “medical fraud”. This is a slanderous term that uninformed antifluoridationists toss around, failing to realize that such accusations require at least a modicum of documented evidence to keep them from facing personal liability issues.

3. The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. It requires no treatment.

Your hypocrisy is obvious by the fact that while you lament “concern” for benign, barely detectible mild dental fluorosis because you erroneously believe it confirms your bias, you callously disregard the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection, directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation……….because it contradicts your bias.

4. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. If you had actually read the Cochrane Review, you would understand that this report does not , in any manner, negate these studies.

My best suggestion to you, John, is to get out of your narrow-minded little shell, begin to see beyond the misinformation spoon-fed to you from antifluoridationist websites, and make an effort to properly educate yourself on this issue from proper sources of accurate, authoritative information. Then go volunteer in a free dental clinic. You are in dire need of a reality check.

Well Steve thank for the unsubstantiated rhetoric demonstrating your ignorance when it comes to fluoridation. Firstly, there is only one natural fluoride and that is calcium fluoride not the artificial fluorides generated as waste from the production of aluminium and phosphate fertilisers. Secondly as a dentist you should know that dental fluorosis is a disease and is the reason for the recent lowering for the artificial fluoride concentrates by the US Public Health Service from 1.2mgs/L to 0.07mgs/L. Thirdly fluoride is a drug used in the medications and has been used very effectively in treating hyperthyroidism (in case you don’t know that is over active thyroid. Shouldn’t you be drilling holes and filling cavities instead of spending all your time trying to defend the indefensible. Or perhaps you don’t have any patients which would not be surprising concerning your lack of understanding about the harm of fluorides. It does appear you have been overexposed to fluorides and mercury and this is affecting your ability to see fluoridation as nothing but a way for big business to dispose of chemical waste by using consumers as dumping grounds instead of paying the millions of dollars to have it disposed of properly.

Given that there is little or nothing accurate in your comment, John, it is obvious whom is ignorant of fluoridation here. The comical thing is that you, like most antifluoridationists, have no idea of the extent of your ignorance. You simply bluster on, continuing to make fools of yourselves.

Sigh…..

1. First of all, Calcium fluoride is not fluoride. Fluoride is an atom. calcium fluoride is a compound containing fluoride. An atom is not a compound. Elementary chemistry.

Second, calcium fluoride does not exist in groundwater. As this water flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring fluoride.” When hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is introduced to drinking water, due the pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed ( dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those “naturally occurring” fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectible amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does reach not the tap. It is not ingested.

“Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorisilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation.
These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual
fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance
is the fluoride ion (F-). ”

—-SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health
effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water –
16 May 2011.

2. Mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectible effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The 2006 NRC Committee considered mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.

—–Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council

3. The US Public Health Service did not lower “the artficial fluoride concentrates…..from 1.2 mgs/L to 0.07 mgs/L”.

First of all, there is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”

Second, the current recommended optimal level is not 0.07 mg/L, it is 0.7 mg/L.

Third…….
The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This optimal level was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.

4. The use of fluoride to treat hyperthyroidism is irrelevant to water fluoridation. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride, on the thyroid, or anything else. If you care to argue this point, then provide such evidence, properly cited.

5. The “big business” conspiracy nonsense is a staple of antifluoridationist “arguments”. It is meaningless and irrelevant.

Fluoride is classified as a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Fluoride was recently identified by leading scientists Philip Landrigan and Philippe Grandjean as a developmental neurotoxin in the March 2014 journal Lancet Neurology. Further research now shows that fluoride can damage the fetal brain, adversely affect newborn babies’ behavior, damage the central nervous system of fluoride-exposed workers, and affect performance on neurological assessment tests. Forty-four human studies now show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe. Over 100 animal studies show fluoride can directly damage the brain; with another 30 animal studies showing fluoride impairs learning or memory — including four published in 2014.

Besides being unaware of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, most parents are not informed that routinely mixing infant formula with fluoridated water increases babies’ risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) without any benefit. Bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities get about 200 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies. The CDC reports that 41% of teenagers have dental fluorosis – a physical marker that too much fluoride was ingested while their teeth formed. Dental fluorosis is increasing. Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of fluorosis than White children.

Unfortunately, fluoridation promotion is not science-based but is politically motivated. While it’s important to avoid fluoridated water especially for infants, it’s imperative that parents contact legislators and tell them to stop (or not start) adding unnecessary fluoride chemical into the public’s water supply

In March, an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health was the first to systematically look at the relationship between the behavioral disorder and water fluoridation. The study, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” found that “each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011.”

Legislators should never prescribe fluoride to all their constituents, have it delivered by water engineers instead of a well-trained pharmacist and then dose it based on thirst and not age, health, weight or need.

Oh, yes, “nyscof” cites yet another little activist website with the stale “EPA Scientists” yarn which “FAN” has been attempting to use for years to imply that there is opposition to fluoridation from legitimate scientists.

So, let’s look at these “scientists who actually do the chemical risk assessment”:

First if all, the EPA has no authority under law to oppose or endorse fluoridation. But they can, and have, stated that “Fluoride in drinking water at levels of about 1 ppm reduces the number of dental cavities” (51 Fed Reg 1140, 1986). They have also stated that “There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8 mg/l,” (62 Fed Reg 64297, 1997). In effect, U.S. EPA has gone on record that there are no adverse medical effects from fluoridation even at eight times the optimum concentration for reduction of tooth decay. The basis for an allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a quorum of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution. Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent. Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees’ Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.

Questions and Answers About Fluoridation
Indiana State Department of Health

‘Tis time to correct Steve Slott’s wildly distorted recitation on history of the EPA HQ professionals’ labor union and its activities regarding fluoride, along with that of LindaRosaRN.

First, it was not EPA scientists who set “an upper level” of “over 5 times the recommended fluoridation level,” nor did they concur with the nonsensical assertion that fluoride is a “nutrient.” The 4 ppm level of this toxic mineral was set by EPA’s management.

Second, Slott has what can only be described as a confused impression of the union’s history in terms of relationship with national unions. From 1984, when the union won the exclusive right to represent HQ professionals, to 1998, the union was Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees. In February 1998 the union voted to change affiliations and became Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Third the fact that a quorum of NFFE Local 2050, which included many experts in the fields of toxicology, biology, biochemistry and risk assessment, among other scientific and legal professions, and including the senior, ranking chemist at EPA HQ, after hearing and careful consideration of presentations by Prof. Paul Connett and former union president Bob Carton and discussing the implications of a vote, voted unanimously to support the California initiative to overturn the state mandate on fluoridation, should cause – and apparently DID cause – concern among people considering whether requiring citizens, including infants and people at special risk, to ingest higher levels of fluoride for their entire lives. Those who voted were not hearing for the first time about fluoride toxicity and EPA management’s complicity in foisting a health-based drinking water standard on the American public. The union, through meetings and its regular newsletter kept the bargaining unit apprised of its on-going study of fluoride toxicity since 1985. The voters knew very well that voting as they did would help citizens protect themselves against the well-funded propaganda machine of the ADA, the Oral Health Division of CDC, and well-meaning but woefully uninformed people like LindaRosa.

Fourth, had Slott bothered to do even a modicum of investigation before spewing misinformation about the union, he would have known that NTEU Chapter 280 maintains the position originally adopted by NFFE Local 2050. The union’s web page, nteu280.org, contains a wealth of information about the union, including its honored history of working in the public interest regarding asbestos, toxic emissions from carpeting, flammable insecticide aerosols, second-hand smoking, dangers to first-responders to the 911 attacks in New York City, and inadequately tested organophosphate pesticides. In these efforts we have often been joined by other EPA unions around the U.S.

In fact, it was not only NTEU Chapter 280, but 10 other Locals of the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Association of Government Employees and Engineers and Scientists of California, who jointly petitioned the EPA to take action on cancer epidemiology results that showed young boys to be at about 5 times elevated risk of osteosarcoma, including instituting a moratorium on all water fluoridation in the U.S. while any additional research that might be required was done.

The one good thing EPA management has done about fluoridation is do tell ADA to remove EPA from their list of supporters of fluoridation. See the NTEU history for documentation.

So, Slott’s assertion that just 20 EPA union members are concerned about fluoride and fluoridation, and that only the professional bargaining unit at HQ cares about the dangers inherent in water fluoridation is utterly false.

It seems that Bill Hirzy has taken time from his busy schedule as paid lobbyist, for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network” to vent his ire over the facts and evidence I have presented. Perhaps he is in a lull between his trips to NZ and elsewhere on FAN “business”.

So, let’s take a look at his latest rant:

1. “First, it was not EPA scientists who set “an upper level” of “over 5 times the recommended fluoridation level,” nor did they concur with the nonsensical assertion that fluoride is a “nutrient.” The 4 ppm level of this toxic mineral was set by EPA’s management.”

A. Assuming Hirzy to be referring to the EPA primary MCL for fluoride, 4.0 ppm, yes, that is correct. It was not the purview of a small local union of EPA employees to set that legally mandated level.

B. The “recommended fluoridation level” to which Hirzy refers is, presumably, the optimal level. The optimal is a recommended level set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on maximum dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. The EPA primary MCL is not based upon dental decay prevention. It is based upon protection against adverse health effects from long term consumption of the substance in question. .

“EPA’s drinking water standard differs from the Public Health Service (PHS) recommendation for fluoridation because the two have different purposes. EPA’s enforceable standard for fluoride in public water supplies (4.0 milligrams per liter) is set to protect against exposure to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. The PHS recommendation (0.7 milligrams per liter) identifies the optimal concentration of fluoride to prevent tooth decay while limiting the chance for dental fluorosis, which is a change in the appearance of the tooth enamel. The PHS recommendation only applies to those public water systems that add fluoride to reach the optimal concentration. Public water systems that contain naturally occurring fluoride at concentrations above 0.7 mg/L will not be affected by the new recommendation.”

——http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#fluoride3

C. There is no mineral, or any other substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of toxicity of optimal level fluoride.

D. In regard to what Hirzy terms to be the “nonsensical assertion” that fluoride is a nutrient:

“This report focuses on five nutrients—calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which play a key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues.”

“Fluoride is regarded as an essential nutrient now well known to be effective in the maintenance of a tooth enamel that is more resistant to decay.”

—-Fluoride as a Nutrient
American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Nutrition
Pediatrics, vol. 49, No 3, March 1972

“Fluoride is a normal constituent of the human body, involved in the mineralisation of both teeth and bones (Fairley et al 1983, Varughese & Moreno 1981). The fluoride concentration in bones and teeth is about 10,000 times that in body fluids and soft tissues (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, 1995). Nearly 99% of the body’s fluoride is bound strongly to calcified tissues. Fluoride in bone appears to exist in both rapidly- and slowly-exchangeable pools. Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries, fluoride has been classified as essential to human health (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, FNB:IOM 1997)8”

2. “Second, Slott has what can only be described as a confused impression of the union’s history in terms of relationship with national unions………etc, etc, etc”

There is nothing in this diatribe about the history of this little union which contradicts any statement I made. A quorum consisting of 20 members of this union met, and affirmed the antifluoridationist activities of its then leader, William Hirzy. This, according to Hirzy, was after this small group heard “presentations”, by long-time antifluoridationists Paul Connett…..leader of the “Fluoride Action Network”/Hirzy’s current boss….and Robert Carton.

3. “The voters knew very well that voting as they did would help citizens protect themselves against the well-funded propaganda machine of the ADA, the Oral Health Division of CDC, and well-meaning but woefully uninformed people like LindaRosa.”

So, according to Hirzy, the American Dental Association and the United States Centers For Disease Control are “well-funded propaganda machine[s]…..while the “Fluoride Action Network” is the source which Hirzy believes to be credible. Uh…..no. This ridiculous statement of his speaks for itself.

As I have clearly demonstrated, Hirzy is the one whom is “woefully uninformed”.

4. “Fourth, had Slott bothered to do even a modicum of investigation before spewing misinformation about the union, he would have known that NTEU Chapter 280 maintains the position originally adopted by NFFE Local 2050.”

Yes, Chapter 280, formerly the little employee union which supported Hirzy’s antifluoridationist activities, has not changed its position on fluoridation.

5. “In fact, it was not only NTEU Chapter 280, but 10 other Locals of the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Association of Government Employees and Engineers and Scientists of California, who jointly petitioned the EPA to take action on cancer epidemiology results that showed young boys to be at about 5 times elevated risk of osteosarcoma, including instituting a moratorium on all water fluoridation in the U.S. while any additional research that might be required was done.”

There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence which supports Hirzy’s unsubstantiated, implication that optimally fluoridated water causes osteosarcoma in anyone. I will be glad to cite the science which clearly dispels this myth if he so desires.

6. “The one good thing EPA management has done about fluoridation is do tell ADA to remove EPA from their list of supporters of fluoridation. See the NTEU history for documentation.”

As I stated, the EPA does not oppose or endorse fluoridation.

“EPA neither endorses nor opposes the addition of fluoride to drinking water. The decision to add fluoride is made on a local basis.”

7. “So, Slott’s assertion that just 20 EPA union members are concerned about fluoride and fluoridation, and that only the professional bargaining unit at HQ cares about the dangers inherent in water fluoridation is utterly false.”

The comment that is “utterly false” is Hirzy’s claim that I made any such assertion. Apparently he does not realize that my comment is still visible.

B. There are no “dangers inherent in water fluoridation”………as evidenced by Hirzy’s inability to provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any such “dangers”.

What a remarkable bit of conspiracy fiction! NysCof has to dig back to a poorly-attended meeting of a *labor union* for something that still requires her heavy-handed editing to be useful propaganda for the anti-fluoridationists. Thanks to Dr. Slott for the historical details.

“…Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face…. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids…”

For what it’s worth : I’ve heard an Appalachian old timer talk about water fluoridation with a deep sense of gratitude. He talked about how the teeth of people up here in these hills used to be before fluoridation. That always stuck with me.

Neither the credibility of the person nor the validity of the argument can be determined by labeling. However, I have to admit the pro-F advocates have gobbled up some great sounding urls.

Dogmatic pronouncements by self-proclaimed “skeptics” like Dan Johnson or other social media “experts” accompanied by politically correct endorsements of organizational policy is not science. This word choice does NOT make their blog posts more reputable than the actual scientific reports or the Newsweek article, and certainly not more valid than the comments of the scientists who actually did the research and wrote the reports.

Expert in Medical History: “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” – Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of New Zealand (1998)

Wow. 47 comments on Fluoride in the water, with a side order of vaccination conspiracy. Now can we talk about UFOs? Those weird contrails the UN is spreading? Black Helicopters? Geez, nerds, get a freakin’ life already.

Fluoride is a natural contaminant of some fresh water supplies. The ion dissolves usually from calcium fluoride in soils. The EPA MCL and MCLG are listed at 4 and 2 ppm , but these data were obtained for fluoride naturally present in water that is accompanied with calcium. Calcium in water prohibits fluoride from being assimilated into the bloodstream after it is ingested. Further, calcium fluoride is only soluble ion water to 8 ppm and hence is not acutely lethal. On the other hand, industrial fluoride compounds do not contain calcium and are all listed poisons on registries because these are fully soluble in water. The poisoning that occurred during a fluoridation overfeed from use of industrial sodium fluoride at Hooper Bay, AK (Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490) could not have happened if natural calcium fluoride had been used as the fluoridating agent. The fluoride ion is identical from the two compounds, but fluoride toxicity depends on the total calcium and magnesium concentrations in the water. “Fluoridation” with industrial fluoride compounds has not been safety tested by the EPA and there are no MCL values for fluoride in soft water. Instead the EPA relies on natural calcium fluoride in hard water and mistakenly applies the MCL to industrial fluoride even for soft water.
eating and drinking fluoride ion does not decrease dental caries. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically from consumption of 1 ppm treated water (0.016 ppm) is 75,000 times lower in concentration than in toothpaste. Systemic fluoride in blood and tissues throughout the body at 0.2 ppm from water ingestion causes the ion to accumulate lifelong into bone to thousands of ppm, causing formation of bone of poor quality. The incorporation is pathologic and permanent. We now have 1/3 million cases yearly of hip fractures in U.S. elderly where most perish from pneumonia waiting for bone to heal. Cruel experiments done on dogs indicate that broken bones in dogs given fluoridated water heal far more slowly than for dogs with non-fluoride-drugged water.
It is illegal to intentionally add any EPA regulated contaminant, such as fluoride, at any concentration into public water supplies in the U.S. without an NPDES permit , as described in the Clean Water Act. It is illegal to require the addition of any substance into water other than to sanitize the water as described in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, in water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, banned the sale of fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women, ruled fluoride is not safe to add to foods, and it must not be used in kidney dialysis wards because of the increased morbidity its use causes in patients requiring regular dialysis.
Sorry to burst the bubble of fluoridationists, but such is the truth. Got to go. Thanks for your attention.

Yeah, why am I paying tax dollars for someone else to be healthy? Shouldn’t conspiracy theorists be paying a bottled-water tax because their health is taking a toll and I will have to foot their medicare bill because of their mistakes?

There is no need to argue whether fluoride is good for our teeth (it’s not) or if fluoride is good for our bodies (it’s not). The issue is that our city is medicating people without informed consent. You cannot give medication to someone without their informed consent. Fluoride, according to its promotors, is a medication to treat dental cavities. Even fluoride promotors will acknowledge that not everyone should received fluoride in their water (young children, elderly, etc..). So we can have a million studies about the benefits of fluoride, just like we have studies about the benefits of vitamin C, or Calcium, or whatever. But the city cannot put it in our drinking water because they believe its good for our teeth. In fact, it opens the city up to civil liability for placing a known neurotoxin into the water without informed consent.

Thank you for all the comments on my letter. I never thought that this would cause such a debate.
I just want to let people know that I did my research and studied both sides of the argument and formulated my opinion without being swayed in any way by the organization that I work for. Just because I am in high school doesn’t mean that I am unable to have educated and valid opinions.

We all need to remember that community water fluoridation is mainly benefitical to the people who can’t have access to regular oral health care. In a perfect world, our health care system would be at a point to where every person can go to the dentist regularly/ afford mouth wash & toothpaste and we wouldn’t need fluoride in the water to be a sort of band-aid for their oral health.

Once again, thank you and I appreciate all the comments and views on my letter!

“The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” – 2000 York Review

Sadly, Xena, the statement “community water fluoridation is mainly benefitical to the people who can’t have access to regular oral health care, ” is a false one promoted by proponents of fluoridation. Both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Review confirmed that those SES benefits are NOT supported by the evidence, despite dental assertions. In actually, fluoridation is more harmful to the poor because fluoride increases the need for protein, calcium and vitamin C, so that those with less than adequate nutrition are more vulnerable to toxicity. (see references in 2015 Erin Brockovich letter to IOM)

However, although it is a highly polarized debate, both sides agree this isn’t about opinion, age, or intelligence, it’s about science and it is about ethics. Unfortunately, it takes a LOT of homework to dig out what is what. I suggest you follow up on the links I provided in this thread. Here is one more:

“McDonagh et al. (2000) found “little evidence that water fluoridation reduces socioeconomic disparities.” To repeat: Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health, but few relevant studies exist. The quality of research was even lower than that assessing overall effects of fluoridation. (Cheng et al. 2007) Evidence relating to reducing inequalities in dental health was both scanty and unreliable. (Wilson and Sheldon 2006)” Thiessen p 10-11http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Kathleen_Thiessen_Nov27_2009_Health_Canada.pdf